State Senate approves genetic labeling

Updated 11:43 am, Wednesday, May 22, 2013

HARTFORD -- Speaker of the House J. Brendan Sharkey wants to support legislation that would require the labeling of products that contain genetically modified organisms.

But he's not sure whether the House will approve the version approved in the state Senate late Tuesday night that would depend on three nearby states to approve similar legislation by July of 2015.

Sharkey, in an interview near the House podium around the time the Senate was approving the bill, said his majority caucus met behind closed doors earlier in the day to discuss the controversial measure.

"The caucus confirmed my own sense that obviously we want to do something," Sharkey said. "My concern all along has been the question of whether Connecticut should put itself out on its own, requiring this labeling and whether that puts us at an economic disadvantage being the first and only state to do this."

The Senate bill approved Tuesday night in a 35-1 vote would require food products to include labels telling consumers of any genetically modified organisms. If three nearby states did not approve the measure by July of 2015, the state law would go into effect, on July 1, 2016.

Sharkey said he's worried about isolating Connecticut if no other states went along with the pro-consumer requirement. "That's something I'm very concerned about," he said. "If we can't get a critical mass of other states to be involved with this I think it puts Connecticut at some risk, economically, to do this."

The speaker said "there were no conversations" with Senate leaders on the issue before the bill was debated and voted there. "We're kind of polling the caucus now to see whether they support the Senate version or if we want to see some different elements of the trigger," Sharkey said. If the Senate bill were amended and approved in the House, the bill would be sent back to the Senate. The legislative session ends at midnight on Wednesday, June 5.

The Connecticut Food Association warned that labeling could become an unacceptable expense for grocers and supermarkets. And advocates for the chemical industry said that science has not proven that GMOs are harmful.

About 500 people gathered outside the Capitol for a rally in support of the legislation, featuring Senate President Pro Tempore Donald E. Williams and Senate Minority Leader John McKinney.

"Those who oppose labeling don't want to be truthful or honest, nor do they want us to be enlightened," said Tara Cook-Littman, of GMO Free Connecticut, who led the rally. "If the bio-tech and food industry is so convinced that GMOs are safe, let's just agree to label them and let the public make their own decisions."

"What we're embarking on is nothing less than the most-important fight of our generation when it comes to food," said Williams, D-Brooklyn. "These genetically modified foods are engineered so we can increasingly pour increasing amounts of pesticide and herbicides on our farmland."

He said that the Senate took up the bill, which was offered on an amendment about state egg laws, because it seemed to be bogging down in the House.

McKinney said that co-sponsors of the legislation cross party lines. "One of the basic obligations of government is to protect its people and that goes beyond just fire and police officers," he said. "That means public safety and protecting what you're eating. We're saying let moms and dads know what's in the food we're buying for their young kids."\

Plants and animals that are engineered to contain the genes of other plants and animals fit the definition of GMOs. Agricultural and chemical companies have done the engineering to increase crop yields and resistance to insects.

Advocates of the bill cite a number of studies that found animals that ate GMO corn and soy had liver, kidney and bone marrow damage. The bill would also require GMO seeds to be labeled.

Majority House Democrats caucused over the issue Tuesday afternoon, and Speaker of the House J. Brendan Sharkey said a few hours later that the bill might be amended in the House over the issue of effective dates.

Stan Sorkin, executive director of the Connecticut Food Association, said Tuesday that the state's grocers and supermarkets are worried about higher costs.

"The concerns are that specific labeling legislation could put a burden on supermarkets to be watchdog on products coming into the store," he said in a phone interview. "We would incur additional expenses, as would the manufacturers and those costs could go up for consumers."

"I think there's a lot of emotion surrounding this bill right now," said Pescatello, who also said the bill could violate constitutional rights for free commercial speech.

"You can only require labeling and make a business say something if there's a compelling state interest," he said. "There's an implication that there's something wrong with GMO food. It would be unfortunate for people not to use GMO foods out of an unfounded fear."